I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
We could likely optimize %postun to include if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then ... fi but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
-- Rex
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:33 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
We could likely optimize %postun to include if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then ... fi but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Hey Rex, Looks like your edit got lost somewhere. The last edit I see to the page was 2006-12-04.
-Toshio
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:33 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
We could likely optimize %postun to include if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then ... fi but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Hey Rex, Looks like your edit got lost somewhere. The last edit I see to the page was 2006-12-04.
Arg! You're right. ????
ok, one more try.
-- Rex
Rex Dieter wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Hey Rex, Looks like your edit got lost somewhere. The last edit I see to the page was 2006-12-04.
Arg! You're right. ????
OK, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache *really* is v0.2 now.
To re-iterate, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 20:33, Rex Dieter wrote:
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
How about removing this completely from .spec files and add it to a yum-plugin, that runs whenever package adds a file to {_datadir}/icons/ and then only once per yum invocation?
Regards, Till
Till Maas wrote:
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 20:33, Rex Dieter wrote:
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
How about removing this completely from .spec files and add it to a yum-plugin, that runs whenever package adds a file to {_datadir}/icons/ and then only once per yum invocation?
sure, got code for that? (: Besides, I don't think wouldn't work for manual rpm installs.
-- Rex
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
Hi,
I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :):
a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already depend on xdg-utils3, include ..."
I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do remove some redundancy technically, but cut&paste methods are used more often than reading the guidelines, recursive dependencies may change and so on. Let's keep it simple and always require it.
b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully, this will include F*7),"
While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this?
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
Hi,
I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :):
a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already depend on xdg-utils3, include ..."
I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do remove some redundancy technically, but cut&paste methods are used more often than reading the guidelines, recursive dependencies may change and so on. Let's keep it simple and always require it.
b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully, this will include F*7),"
While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this?
And the third of the two questions is: ;)
c) why is xdg-icon-resource's exit code thrown away? We do know it will exist (explicit direct or indirect Requires:) contrary to gtk-update-icon-cache, so if it fails it probably indicates some system error that should propagate up to the user and get hos attention (e.g. write failure to the cache/fs full etc.)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:27:07PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
c) why is xdg-icon-resource's exit code thrown away? We do know it will exist (explicit direct or indirect Requires:) contrary to gtk-update-icon-cache, so if it fails it probably indicates some system error that should propagate up to the user and get hos attention (e.g. write failure to the cache/fs full etc.)
failed scriptlets = aborted rpm transaction, which is bad bad bad.
Yes, I'm aware of that, aborted transaction = user is notified of somethng broken. So the question is if xdg-icon-resource is always present and is known (is it?) to not fail unless the file system was remounted read-only or the binary is of the wrong elf format or other catastrophies, then better fail early than late.
Of course the actual work not having been done by this script is negligible, but I just don't want to silence away any failures in all scriplets for the sake of (presumably) allowing rpm to install further on.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
Hi,
I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :):
a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already depend on xdg-utils3, include ..."
I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do
...
b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully, this will include F*7),"
While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this?
blockers? None, that I'm aware of.
Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b). I'd like to someday not need the Requires: xdg-utils at all.
I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too.
-- Rex
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:30:24PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
I've updated the iconcache proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): Requires(post): xdg-utils Requires(postun): xdg-utils
Hi,
I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :):
a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already depend on xdg-utils3, include ..."
I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do
...
b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully, this will include F*7),"
While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this?
blockers? None, that I'm aware of.
Then let's vote on it.
Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b). I'd like to someday not need the Requires: xdg-utils at all.
I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too.
I'm fine with the proposal as is (wouldn't mind adding strict requirements on xdg-utils3 and removing "|| :", but that's just nice to have ;), so +1 from here
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Rex Dieter -
Till Maas -
Toshio Kuratomi